Hey, so considering what my future job will be, I thought that it would be worthwhile to start putting some of my thoughts involving video games down on “paper.” These posts will be mostly drawn from my experiences with a particular game, so they most likely won’t have any links for references.

So with all of that precursor junk out the way let’s get into it. The other day I had the absolute pleasure to play a game called Journey. I know that it has been out for 2 years, but up until this point I haven’t had access to either a PS3 or a copy of the game. But I recently got access to both of those things and so I finally played Journey. I had already seen a playthrough, so I knew just how short it was. So having set aside the two hours I knew it would take to complete. I began my Journey (heh see what I did there?).

I won’t really talk much about the game because I feel that what it contained wasn’t as important as what I got out of it. That may sound harsh but let me explain. If you look at Journey from a purely mechanical standpoint it is so bare bones to the point of almost not being a game. You play as a piece of cloth walking in a desert. But even with that few mechanics Journey has managed to make its way into it’s place as one of my favorite games of all time. This is bizarre for me because in my mind mechanics has always and I mean always trumped story. Because of this I have heavily enjoyed games like Super Meat Boy, Spelunky, Rayman Origins/Legends, and Hotline Miami. Those games may have story but it is either silly to the point of uselessness or there is none to speak of.

So that begs the question why did enjoy Journey so much? I have a couple theories as to why. My biggest one is that the ambiance and the atmosphere of the game was so cohesive and beautiful that any other shortcomings fell to the wayside. My other one is that this game was just so minimalistic compared to other games that I have played, that I enjoyed it simply due to the change of pace. It could be a combination of both of these things or something entirely different than that.

When I say that this game was cohesive and that all of the elements worked together in unison I mean that they fit perfectly. If you were in the middle of a moment that was supposed to be thrilling the music would climb to a crescendo and lift you to greater heights. During that section the mechanics were fast paced adding more to the feeling speed and excitement. The graphics would also add on to this with gorgeous set pieces and really stylized lighting. Then there were the times when your character was downtrodden and beaten. The game would change how he looked, you would walk slower, and the music would be more somber and slow. This perfect unison of all of the elements of the game meant that when the developer wanted you to feel something you really felt it.

Speaking of highs and lows I would also like to mention that this game is paced perfectly. The other day I watched a cool video by Extra Credits that was about pacing in video games. In the video it talks about how well pace video games make you feel awesome and then cool it down and then make you feel awesome again in an ever increasing series of peaks and valleys. As I was playing Journey I noticed that it followed the pacing graph in the video perfectly. Journey also slammed it home by bringing the experience back together and winding the game down with an extremely satisfying ending.

It is definitely worth mentioning that Journey stands as a game that has no fighting amidst a sea of shoot em ups and action games. I loved that the game took gameplay in a different direction than combat. Not many games do that these days, and it made Journey all that more special of an experience.

So what is my main point in this post besides Journey being a great game? Games are about experience. Not “xp” or leveling a character, but rather the experience that a player gains through play. While some people say that games are about making a player feel something, I think that is missing the mark by a little bit. Games are making the player experience something. Whether that is an emotion, an epiphany, or an epic journey, if a game succeeds in conveying the intended experience to a player, I view that as a major success. There are different ways in which games do this, and hopefully I will be able to cover them in future posts. However, as it is now I think I’ve covered mostly everything I wanted to and so I’ll leave at that.

With the advent of the Xbox One and the Playstation 4 past some interesting discussions have come up about microtransactions. In the past few years we have seen a very strong move towards purchasing models based upon microtransactions and free to play. This was typified by the launch titles on the Xbox One. Both Forza Motorsport 5 and Ryse: Son of Rome heavily featured microtransactions, with Ryse featuring scarily pay-to-win purchases and Forza allowing you to skip most of the progression system in the game via purchases such as paying a whopping 37 dollars for the most expensive car in the game. The even sadder truth is that both of those games are 60 dollars at a standard price point. So not only do you have to pay 60 dollars but you can end up paying more than twice that in the games themselves. You can read some more about that here.

Another interesting event has happened that correlates to the increase in microtransactions seen in recent years.Silconera, the developer of Dead or Alive (DoA) have just announced that they are placing a limit on the amount of money you can spend on microtransactions in the most recent titles of both DoA and Dynasty Warriors. This limit will only apply to kids and young adults and it will be a set amount of money per month. The older you are the more you can spend. I think that this is an interesting business practice and I actually have to applaudSiliconera for this move. It shows that they actually care about their fanbase and don’t want to abusemicrotransactions.

The bigger question I guess is whether Siliconera made this change because of the recent move towardsmicrotransactions, the flagrant use of them on the Xbox One, or if it has no relation whatsoever. It’s also worth asking whether or not we will see more behavior like this from developers in the future. I know that iTunes app store could certainly use restrictions like this. There have been several cases of children spending large amounts of cash in the form microtransactions within games. The sad thing is that these games were actually aimed atchildren, and used abusive game mechanics to encourage kids to make in-app purchases with or without their parents’ consent.

I think that one thing is clear from all of these events. Microtransactions are most likely not going away anytime soon and there will have to be a point in which either we the consumer or some larger power sets their foot down and sets the line for what is ok and what isn’t. If we don’t do this I fear that microtransactions will never be used for the intended and entirely legitimate purpose. Allowing players to either purchase games in pieces, or allowing for a game to have no barrier for entry because it is free.

The Rayman videogame series, alone is enough for most people to automatically know that any new sequel will be much anticipated and rigorously scrutinized, Rayman Legends is no exception. Debuting on September 3, 2013 in the United States, developer Ubisoft once again created an amazing game to play. The 2d hand crafted design is beautiful, but real brilliance is in the level design and gameplay. There is never a dull moment when playing Rayman Legends. This is an awesome sequel to Rayman Origins and boy did it deliver.

The animation is clean and crisp. The art is in a word alluring. And gameplay is even better; now with gliding and swimming, you are able to explore with more freedom and every level has something new to do.

Even your closest friends can join the fun; up to four people can jump in at any time to play with you through the entire game. You can play Rayman Legend on PC, Xbox 360, Playstation 3, Playstation vita, and Wii U. It’s almost like looking at a looney tunes show back in the 90s.

The critics rave Rayman, Edge magazine gave it 9/10 said, “One of the most jubilant, vividly imagined and open-hearted platformers to come along in a long time”, Tom McShea ofGamespot rated the game a 9.0/10 praising the game mechanics, the level design and the local co-op and last Jose Otero ofIGN (imagine Games Network), an entertainment website rated the game a 9.5/10, praising the gameplay and the design of the levels, saying that “Naturally, Rayman starts out with simple running, jumping, and punching, but before you know it you’re sneaking past dozens of deadly traps, battling huge bosses, or playing through awesome challenge levels that look like ’90s music videos. Every time I thought I found a personal favorite stage, the next one came along and replaced it”, but criticized the absence of online co-op. These are just a few of many great reviews.

Rayman Legends is a 2d side-scrolling platformer. In this game you play as Rayman and an assortment of his allies. Your goal is to collect lums and rescue the teensies. I just bought this game a couple weeks ago and I am loving playing it. Let me tell you why I think the changes made to this game catapulted it instantly into my favorites.

Rayman: Legends moves the series in a more fast paced direction with levels that require constant movement. Legends also moves the series towards music based gameplay. These two design decisions are the main reason I am really liking this game. The fast paced levels are amazing set pieces, even more so if they are music focused. Timing your jumps to an orchestral track, or a heavy metal song feels amazingly satisfying. It is a really good blend of music rhythm games and platformers. There is also the addition of murphy. Murphy can interact with certain environmental elements that will allow you to progress through the levels. It really satisfying to be platforming and timing your button presses to send murphy to do something at the same time.

Even with the move towards those gameplay elements, the thing that I most liked about Legends was the way that they tied everything together. When you complete a levels you could get trophies based upon how much you completed in your playthrough of that level. These trophies would give you awesome points which add to your awesome level which is used to unlock challenge levels. Completing levels also gave you lucky tickets which could unlock rayman levels from Origins, lums, or a teensy. Lums would unlock new characters, and teensies would unlock new levels. So by completing one level you could get access to a huge variety of different things. It does a great of job of making the player feel accomplished. You play and you get rewards; it is a great example of operant conditioning.

So I would like to discuss an interesting topic in video games today. Mainly, I want to talk about exposition in video games and the use of exposition in video games today. There is an interesting article on IGN that talks about this very issue, in reference to lecture given by Greg Kasavin of Supergiant Games.

Before we get into anything, I would like to first define what exposition is to me. Exposition is giving knowledge about a particular story or world that they wouldn’t have been able to gain through main storyline. This kind of knowledge could have been gained beforehand, if the player was a fan of the game’s universe, or alternate media based in that universe. Feel free to disagree with this definition, but for the purposes of this article, that is what it means.

There are three main points in the article mentioned above:

“Exposition is the art of pacing your game properly.”

“the best exposition in games is that which is expertly hidden”

Design your game “as if no one cares.”

As for the first point, I disagree with that statement. Kasavin is stating that exposition is pacing a game properly. While this is true to a degree, it applies only to the narrative portion of the game. Exposition can be bad or good, it is not the art of pacing a game, it is how the game explains itself. In addition to this, I would say that the pacing of exposition has little effect on the player’s experience unless it is taken to either of the extremes (too fast or too slow).

His second point however holds much more water. I agree that exposition should be subtle. This applies to both movies and video games. If a game simply throws a wall of text at you, you will either be overwhelmed or indifferent. Even in games with a large amount of cut scenes, heavy-handed exposition is the easiest way to lose a player.

He makes another interesting point that is relevant to his second one. Greg Kasavin said to design your game “as if no one cares”. What he means by this is that you should design your game in a way that makes a lot of your exposition hidden. If somebody wants to find the background information they are welcome to, but if they don’t care they can simply blast past it. I think that the Batman Arkham games provide a good example of this. In the game you can find little fragments of recordings that will reveal different sections of Arkham lore. Even though the recordings are not the best delivery system for exposition, the way that they made them optional and placed them in hidden locations shows exactly what Kasavin was talking about.

When placing exposition in a game, the distinction between narrative and exposition becomes extremely important. Exposition involves the narrative but should not involve essential story elements. The real challenge is finding that perfect balance between exposition and story, so that players of all different types can enjoy your game. You don’t want to have all of your story hidden, but you also don’t want everything explained in the cut scenes.

So that brings up my main question: Is exposition by its very nature opposed to an enjoyable experience? It would seem that way if you were to look the statements made by Greg Kasavin. He essentially states that good games are made by doing your best to hide or camouflage any exposition. However, exposition serves a very important purpose: immersing the player in the world. The more they understand the world, the more they feel connected to it, and they enjoy the experience to a greater degree. I would say that exposition is not necessary, but it can lead to an enjoyable experience. Exposition if done well can greatly improve a game, especially if the game’s narrative relies on outside or canonized information.

TL;DR Exposition makes games more enjoyable, but it should be used discreetly; in other words, don’t over do it.

In the post written Kirk Hamilton, he talks about stealth games. He states that stealth games are fun because they let you take on the role of the predator. That feeling of the hunt, when you are closing in for the kill, this is what gets your adrenaline pumping when playing these games. Kirk then goes on to explain some of the aspects that create that predatory feeling. One of those is the ability to go in for a kill and then reset to a stealth state. Basically meaning that you can alert the enemies to your presence and then sink back into the shadows. He calls this type of stealth gameplay dynamic stealth. He also talks about how essential the design of enemy AI is to proper stealth gameplay. An AI that properly reacts when you are discovered makes the experience much more enjoyable.

I think that he makes an interesting and valid point about how being a predator in games is really fun. However, I don’t think that this is inclusive. I feel that this is down to the efficient use of a theme rather than one of the fundamental pillars of stealth gameplay. The games he brought up were Batman: Arkham Asylum, Crysis 2, and Far Cry 2. These games put you in the role of a predator. It shows proper execution if you feel like predator while playing the games. This is not the only way to play stealth games though.

There are stealth games where it is thematically consistent to avoid your enemies or use deception to get past them. I would argue that these stealth games can be just as enjoyable. One such game that I have played is a game called Gunpoint. In this game you play a corporate spy who is trying to unravel the mystery of a murder that happens at the beginning of the game. In Gunpoint a lot of the gameplay involves indirectly dealing with the guards, and progressing through the level without being discovered. In this game you are easily killed, and because of this fighting is often a poor choice. Even though the mechanics were focused on evasion rather than hunting my enemies, I heavily enjoyed the experience. I don’t think it was invalidated by my character being weak. It made sense, he was fighting trained guards; of course he would be weak.

In his post Kirk states that properly implemented AI makes the experience of the game better. That works regardless of the play style or theme of the game. Good enemy AI is necessary for good stealth games. I do think that the dynamic stealth gameplay he was talking about is good, but as above it is not specific to predator stealth games.

Does feeling like an apex predator make a game enjoyable? Yes. Is it the only way stealth games can be played? I would argue no.